ישראלי5

! •
14 Marranos and Conversos
alties were to be imposed on anyone who dared call such a convert "rene­gade" (tornadizo).23
In the fifteenth century, as we have seen, it was not that such converts were contemptuously called, by Christians as well as Jews, "renegades" for having abandoned their faith, but that the conversos were being insulted with the derogatory and illegal name of Marrano. Thus, Hernando de Ta­lavera, himself of converso origin (possibly), wrote in 1481: "It is com­plained that the newly converted are named among the Christians marranos and marrandies . ... In this manner, not without grave offense to Jesus Christ, are insulted and reproached sometimes the new Christians and their descendants." 24
If the campaign of the Franciscan and Dominican orders, with the bless­ing of the pope, to convert Jews on a large scale to Christianity had been successful well beyond their expectations, something certainly had gone sadly amiss when we find that these new converts were not welcomed with rejoicing in the Christian faith, but instead were reviled and ridiculed.
The reasons for this, and the implications also for the Jews, remain to be unfolded later in this book.

,II
2
"
Early Phase of Conversions:
,l

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries
As we have noted in the previous chapter, the evidence of Christian legal sources demonstrates that there was already a sufficient number of cases of conversion of Jews in the thirteenth century to cause the converts to become the subject of legal protection. In the ruling of Jaime II referred to (1296), besides forbidding that they be called tornadizos and protecting their prop­erty rights, he also decreed that Dominican preachers be allowed to debate with Muslims and Jews and that the latter must respond. Jews were also often compelled to attend sermons preached to them in an effort to get them to convert. Nevertheless, when the Jews of Majorca complained of the "dan­ger" to them from having to attend such sermons in the churches because of the "great multitude" of people there, the king saw the justice of their complaint and ordered that no more than ten Christian men of the better class be allowed at such sermons.1
In this he was merely following the precedent of Pedro III, who in 1279 noted that when the Dominicans of Huesca and Zaragoza compelled Jews to listen to their sermons they were accompanied by large groups of Chris­tians whose presence might cause danger to the Jews, and ordered that nei­ther Christian laymen nor priests be allowed at such preaching. Similar let­ters were sent to the majority of the justices of the realm, and the king wrote the Jewish communities that he had prohibited Christian laity from going into the synagogues at all (where the sermons were then preached) and or­dered the friars not to preach "contumely" and things which could cause scandal. (Such letters were indeed sent by him to various monasteries.) 2
The very real danger from this preaching may be seen in a letter of the same year (1279) from the king to an official in Huesca ordering him to investigate an incident where a scroll of the Torah was "baptized," the Jews were insulted with "derisive songs," and their religion was treated with con­
15 Early Phase of Conversions


tempt, concluding with the mock choosing of a "Jewish king." At the same time, he also ordered that in Calatayud Dominican and Franciscan preach­ers not be accompanied by more than fifteen or twenty people, and that the gates to the Jewish quarter be closed before the sermons were preached in the synagogue, for the protection of the Jews. Nevertheless, only a few months later the king was informed that numbers of Christians were attend­ing the sermons and insulting and injuring Jews. Therefore, the king ordered penalties (fines, probably) imposed on Christians who attended such ser­mons, "except for three or four honorable men." This order went to Bar­celona, Gerona, Vich, Manresa, Villafranca, Tarragona, Cervera, Tarrega, Montblanch, Huesca, Zaragoza, Tarazona, Jaca, Borja, Egea, Barbastro, Calatayud, Daroca, Teruel, Valencia, and Jativa. This list shows the extent of these compulsory sermons.3
In 1297 the Jews of Zaragoza complained to Jaime II about converted Jews preaching and exciting the people against the Jews, resulting in "scan­dal" and damage to them. The king ordered local officials to prevent such preaching, but permitted conversos and other preachers (Dominicans) to dispute with Jews in their synagogues concerning the Christian faith.4 Ap­parently a number of Muslims and Jews in the kingdom of Valencia con­verted, for in that same year the king issued a series of laws concerning them, essentially the same as his previous rulings but with the added provi­sion that converts who did not follow the advice of the Dominicans (who were given direct supervision of converts) might be compelled to do so by the bailes or other officials. In 1299 the king gave permission for the famous Ramon Lull to preach to the Jews, and in 1306 also for the converso Jaime Perez of Valencia. The last that we hear of such compulsory sermons in the reign of Jaime II was the ruling of the Carts (parliament) of Barcelona in 1311 that Jews and Muslims must attend them.5
In the fourteenth century, Pedro IV granted permission to one Romeu de Pal, described simply as "master of the sacred scriptures" and as having a thorough knowledge of Hebrew and Latin (both Franciscans and Domini­cans had begun learning Hebrew in the thirteenth century), to publicly dis­pute with Jews wherever he wished and to compel them to attend, with the aid of Dominican and Franciscan officials. Nevertheless, in 1346 the king responded vigorously to the complaints of the Jews of Cervera against Pedro dez Quo, a Franciscan, who for some time had been inciting people against the Jews by his sermons. The king noted that it was not his intention to cause danger or harm to the Jews, "whom we sustain and defend," and therefore ordered the friar transferred to another monastery. 6
Such complaints were less frequent in the fifteenth century, but we do find some, as when in 1411 the Jews of the city of Murcia complained to Juan II about Dominican preachers there who incited the people to riot Early Phase of Conversions
and to rob and kill the Jews. The Castilian ruler also protested this behav­ior in vigorous terms to the officials of the city, noting that it was caus­ing some Jews to convert against their will. All Jews were to be protected and have freedom to move about as they wished, and so that no one could claim ignorance of this order he commanded that it be posted in public plazas and markets. In 1450, the Jews of Seville complained to the same king about Franciscans preaching "scandalous sermons" there to incite the people against them.?
There can be no doubt, therefore, that whatever the sincere intentions of the more noble of religious leaders or men like Ramon Lull, for example, who was genuinely tolerant, the majority of the Franciscan and Dominican friars who took it upon themselves to "preach" to the Jews and to the Chris­tians against the Jews were guilty of inciting riot and causing considerable harm to the Jews.
The above-mentioned order of Jaime II to Valencia in 1297 makes refer­ence to the law as prescribed in the Usatges de Barcelona, and we find, indeed, in that code a law that any Jew or Muslim who aids a convert to return to his former faith, or calls a convert "renegade," etc., shall be fined "20 ounces of Valencian gold" (the Usatges date from the mid-twelfth cen­tury, but obviously this law could not have been written then; rather, it was one of the later additions made at the time of Jaime 11).8 This, therefore, added another dimension to the question of relations between Jews and con­versos; namely, that Jews, even if they wished to do so, were prohibited from aiding or encouraging conversos to "repent" and return to their former faith. It is also of interest to note that this law, for the first time, specifies that Jews (and Muslims) may not call a converso "renegade," whereas we recall that other such laws refer to the use of such an insult essentially by other Christians.
In 1315 Jaime II granted safe-conduct to one Abraham, a Jew of Mo­
rocco, and his family who had come to live in Aragon. The king noted that
the two minor sons of Abraham had been taken by Christians to a church
and baptized, but the king recognized that because of their tender age they
could not be said truly to have consented and so he permitted them to be
restored to their parents, at which time they conducted themselves as Jews
and were allowed to follow the Jewish law.9
This is also extremely important, as revealing, once again, the typical
"commonsense" approach of the Christian rulers in dealing with such mat­
ters. For reasons which are not altogether clear to me, Aragon-Catalonia,
possibly influenced by the proximity to the papal court at Avignon and to
"pious" France, was more receptive to reactionary religious forces than was
Castile. Thus, the Dominicans and Franciscans were able to establish a
strong position there earlier, whereas it was not really until the fifteenth Early Phase of Conversions

18
century that their program began to be seriously carried out in Castile. It is for this reason, too, as we shall see, that the Inquisition was established in Aragon-Catalonia long before Castile.
What this meant in practical terms was that the Dominicans, particularly, exercised a certain moral authority over the rulers (Jaime I and Jaime II, especially, were very religious men), who were willing to support their mis­sionary activities and even their "right" to dispute with Jews on religion. However, the rulers were also both personally friendly to Jews and realistic about the benefit which accrued to them and their kingdom from the Jews, and thus would brook no outright acts of hostility. More than this, they were basically men of good will with a strong sense of justice and therefore always responded positively and vigorously to complaints by individual Jews or Jewish communities. This was an important factor which no doubt did much to prevent even more widespread conversion of Jews. The truth is that there was never any reason for a "wave of despair" to engulf the Jewish community and compel the conversion of Jews, and with rare exceptions those who did convert chose to do so of their own free will.

The thirteenth century in Spain, as elsewhere in Europe (most notably France), was marked by what has been more than once called a "new mis­sionizing" activity with regard to the Jews.10 Unquestionably, th'lsCamt;-a:ign was initiated by the-Bominican and Franciscan orders. While it may have had papal blessing and support, there is no evidence that the popes directed or ordered such a campaign. Officially, the Christian attitude toward the Jews had not changed from what it had always been. The Jews were consid­ered to be heretics, in that they "knew" the truth of Christ and yet deliber­ately rejected him (as such, Jews are dealt with under the rubric of "heretics" in canon law). Nevertheless, they were seen as "witnesses" to the truth of the Christian faith in that they preserved the original scriptures, the Hebrew Bible which alone was divine revelation and upon the authority of which the entire "New Testament" dependedY Second, they served as "witnesses" in the sense that in Christian scripture they were the people of Christ ac­cording to the flesh and had rejected him (rejected, it should be stressed, and not "crucified"; contrary to popular opinion, the overwhelming ma­jority of Church authorities never entertained the notion that the Jews were responsible for the crucifixion, an opinion held by only a handful of writers throughout Christian history).
In this, they were seen in a very different light from the Muslims, who were also viewed as heretics but of a much worse degree. Further, the Mus­lims were seen as "enemies of the faith" (enemigos de la (e), a term rarely if ever applied to Jews. In fact, the Muslims were true enemies of Christianity, of course. Not only is the Qur'an itself full of polemic almost as violently anti-Christian as it is anti-Jewish, but the Muslim concept of conquest viewed the world at large as divided between two spheres: dar ai-Islam (the Early Phase of Conversions

"house of Islam," countries already dominated by Muslims) and dar al­barb ("house of the sword," countries ripe for conquest). The concept of dhimmt, so-called "protected minority," which extended to the ahl al-kitab, or "people of the scripture," certain rights in return for heavy taxation, applied to Jews, of course, but only to those Christians who did not resist the manifest destiny of Muslim expansion and conquest. In those lands which did resist, a state of jihad, or "holy war," existed.
In response, the Christians declared their own "holy war," the Crusade, and in Spain this became the Crusade of the "Reconquest" of the land held by the infidel. In practice, of course, at least in Spain, there was a good deal of toleration and mutual interdependence between Christians and Muslims, and at least until the fifteenth century there was no serious effort to drive the remaining independent Muslims from the Peninsula. Nevertheless, in theological terms the Muslims remained "enemies of the faith."
None of this, of course, applied to the Jews at all. The Jews were no less polemical against Christianity than were the Muslims (a fact which may not yet have been fully known to the Christians, since the Jews concealed these views in Judeo-Arabic or Hebrew writings), but they were not engaged in outright warfare against the Christians. Indeed, more than that, the Jews had achieved a position of privileged status everywhere in Europe, and not just Spain, owing in large measure to their economic importance to the Christians. This was an important factor, which meant that even if the atti­tude of "the Church" had been as hostile as many wrongly believe it to have been, the Jews could rely on the certainty of royal protection.
Nowhere was this more apparent than at the time of the First Crusade. (1095), when several Jewish communities of Germany were in fact attacked, and many Jews were killed and many more forcibly baptized. We should note, again contrary to the popular misconception, that "the Church" had nothing whatever to do with these events, which were rather perpetrated by gangs of criminals and lower-class "soldiers" on their way to join the cru­sading armies. The important point, however, is that when the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV, and William II of England heard of the events, both per­mitted the Jews who had been forcibly baptized to return to their religion­a decision which, contrary to canon law, was supported also by the pope.12
In Spain during the early stages of the "Reconquest," while it is true that in some cases Jews fought by the side of Muslims against Christian invading forces (also augmented by Jewish soldiers), there appears to have been no bitterness against them on the part of the victorious Christians.
The Jews thus enjoyed a considerable advantage over the Muslims in Christian attitudes and in the reality of their treatment. From a practical perspective, this was due less to the theories of theology, which rarely if ever played any real role in the thoughts or deeds of ordinary people, than to the fact that Jews in Spain possessed an ability which most Muslims did not: they were fluent in Romance, as well as in Arabic and Hebrew. From the earliest period of Muslim dominance of Spain and following the Recon­quest, few Muslims were ever able to acquire more than a superficial knowl­edge of the Christian languages. This ability, or perhaps rather desire, of the Jews to master both Castilian and Catalan, as well as Arabic in many cases, enabled them not only to playa pivotal role as "transmitters of culture" but to integrate themselves quickly and effectively into the general society.
To what, then, are we to attribute the "new" missionary campaign of the mendicant orders in the thirteenth century, and how to explain this devia­tion from the long-standing Christian policy of permitting the Jews the free exercise of their religion until the expected Second Coming of Christ when they were supposed finally to convert? I believe the answer must lie in the repeated fail~n: of the Crusades. Only in Spain, and there only to a degree, had the Chnstlans been successful in routing Muslims and retaking land held to be "Christian" by a venerable tradition, half mingled with legend and folklore. Repeated attempts in the Holy Land, while resulting in an ill­fated and short-lived "Christian Kingdom," had failed to wrest Jerusalem completely fr~m the hands of the "infidels." In light of this failure, it would appear, the fnars now decided to turn their attentions to efforts at convert­ing the Muslims, first in Christian Spain and second in Muslim-held terri­tory both in Spain and in North Africa. Together with this, it seemed per­
haps natural to mount a campaign also to convert the Jews.
Two other factors played a major role in this decision. The first was the thre~t.of the Albigensian (elsewhere Cathar, Waldensian) heresy among the Chnstlans, and the second was the propaganda of Jewish converts.
The Albigensian heresy emerged as early as the twelfth century; it was denounced at the councils of Toulouse (1119) and Tours (1163) and was already t?e subject of a decree issued in 1194 by Alfonso I in Catalonia, the first offiCIal act of the Catalan Inquisition (long before the Inquisition was officially established in Toulouse in 1229). Coincidentally, the center of this here~y wa.s in Provence, then part of the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia, and p:ecIsely m.the ~reas where there was a large concentration of Jews, and Clfcu~stantlal eVIdence seems to suggest a connection between Jews and the heretIcs. Ye~, as I have elsewhere demonstrated, there is no proof whatever for .the conJec~ured "Jewish influence" on this heresy. Recently advanced notIOns of th~ mfluence of the Sefer ha-bahir and other qabalistic ideas are
also totally wIthout foundation.13 How~ver, t?ere was a long-standing Christian tendency to connect heresy of any kmd wIth "Jews," even to the point of labeling Christians suspect of heresy as "Jews." When the Albigensians infiltrated Leon in the early thir­teenth century, Lucas of Tuy (later the bishop there, but at the time a dea­con) wrote a diatribe against these heretics, attempting to connect them
Early Phase ot L,onVeu,lVU"
with the Jews, whom he despised. In the study just mentioned, I also dem­onstrated the similarities between some of the anti-Jewish charges made by Lucas and those found in the work of his near contemporary Caesarius of Hesiterbach; and, most important, I suggested the possibility of the influ­ence of Lucas's ideas on Bernard Gui's famous Manual for Inquisitors.
There was, therefore, a direct relationship which can be established be­tween the attempt of a Lucas of Tuy to connect the Albigensian heresy with Jews and the emphasis of the original Inquisition of Provence on "Jewish heresy" and practice among Christian heretics. However false in reality such charges were, they nevertheless made a strong and lasting impression on the Dominican Inquisition.
The second factor mentioned above, the propaganda campaign con­ducted by willing and eager Jewish converts to Christianity, has been fre­quently discussed by a number of scholars, unlike the Albigensian issue. The instigator of this new campaign of anti-Jewish propaganda was the convert Nicholas Donin, in Paris in the 1230s and 1240s. His efforts were directed primarily against the Talmud, and he succeeded in convincing the Domini­cans, and through them also the pope, of the "blasphemies" contained in that work, which led to the wholesale condemnation and burning of the Talmud in Paris. Although the pope, Gregory IX, condemned the Talmud in the strongest terms in 1239 in letters sent to the kings of France, En­gland, Aragon-Catalonia, Castile, and Portugal, in 1247 the next pope, In­nocent IV, responding to the pleas of the Jews of France that they could not observe their religion without the Talmud, rescinded the order (a fact vir­tually overlooked by scholars who have written on this issue).14
The damage was nevertheless considerable, for the Dominicans now had testimony from the mouths of apostate Jews to something which perhaps they had long suspected but could not prove, that the Talmud contained "blasphemies" against the Christian faith. This charge was further sup­ported by the claims of the convert Paul Christiani, and his testimony, added to the advice of Ramon de Penafort, certainly the most anti-Jewish friar in thirteenth-century Spqin, convinced Jaime I of Aragon-Catalonia in 1263 to order Jews to remove all "blasphemies" from their books on penalty of a fine of 1,000 mrs. That this was generally connected to the plans of the Dominicans for the conversion of the Jews may be seen in the fact that at the same time the king prohibited the use of violence to force the Jews to leave the call (Jewish quarter) to hear sermons by the DominicansY
The following year, in clarification of the decree, the king allowed the Jews the right to defend their books against charges of blasphemy within one month's time before a special tribunal composed of the bishop of Bar­celona (Arnau de Gurb), Ramon de Penafort, Arnau de Segarra, Ramon Marti, and Pere de Genoa. Except for the bishop, all these were Dominican
22
Early Phase of Conversions
friars and all were virulently anti-Jewish, especially the two "Ramons." Later that same year, however, the king relented further and promised the Jews they should no longer have to account for their books or respond to the, ~emands of ~he Dominicans for censorship, or receive from them any wntmg of any kmd, a promise he repeated in 1268 (which must indicate that such charges nevertheless continued).16
Obviousl,y" something changed the king's mind from his initial support of the DomIlllcan program to his permission a year later allowing the Jews to defend their books and then his cancellation of the entire censorship plan. What had convinced him was no doubt the combined effect of the two disputations involving Paul Christiani at Barcelona, one with Bona­strug de Porta (probably in 1241) and the second with Moses b. Nahman (Nabmaides) in 1263 (These were not, as Baer mistakenly wrote, the 'same people.). Neither of these had succeeded in establishing that the Talmud in fact, contained "blasphemous" material. Second, it would appear tha~ the Dominicans had overplayed their hand. Not content with having van­quished Nabmanides, the most important spokesman for the Jewish com­munity, they had attempted to compel Jews to attend their missionizing ser­mons. This repeated interference with the Jews of his realm was something which the king, normally a tolerant and beneficent ruler as far as they were concerned, simply could not permit to continue.
Nevertheless, the Dominicans, and especially Ramon de Penafort, were powerful enough so that they were able to press their program and repeat­edly challenge the good will of the king. Ramon, too, was responsible for the introduction of a whole series of restrictive measures on Jews which were written into the Fueros of Aragon, similar to those he had previously tried to have enacted in the Siete partidas in Castile (a law code which had only advisory status in that kingdom, however).
Nevertheless, although we may never have any reliable information on this, it would appear from what has already been presented here that the missionary activities of the Franciscans and Dominicans in the thirteenth century in the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia had only a limited degree of ~uccess. It was to be entirely otherwise in the subsequent centuries.

The Fourteenth Century: Jewish Sources
The chief legal authority, not only for the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia but fo~ all the Jews of Spain and to some extent throughout Europe, in the latter thIrteenth and early fourteenth centuries, was Solomon Ibn Adret of Barce­lona. Personal friend and counselor of kings, he was, unlike his teacher Nab­manides, actually a rabbi (Nabmanides proudly asserted that he was never Early Phase of Conversions

a rabbi), and head of the Jewish community of Barc,elon~. Thlere are ~xtant from his pen close to three thousand responsa, filhng eIg~t arge V? urnes (actually nine, for the first published collection was not Illcluded III l~ter editions). Writers such as Epstein and Baer by no mean~ ade~uately realIzed the importance of these as a source for the history of, thIS penod, and hardly began to do them justice. The difficulty of the techlllcallanguage employed and the lack of systematic indices have perhaps served to k~:p scholars fro~ approaching them. Several of these respo~sa, or legal d~~IslOns ren~ered III reply to direct questions from other rabbIS or commun~tIes, deal WIth con­versos. It is to be noted that these are all from a penod long before, the persecutions of 1391, and have been for the most part hitherto entIrely
ignored. ,
One of these concerns a Jew (apparently in Monzon) who delIberately violated all the Jewish laws and finally went to live in the ho~se ~f some Christians. When other Jews tried to convince him to abandon hIS evIl, ways, he replied that he no longer believed in the God ?f Israel, and that Illdeed even while living among Jews he had only made hImself appear to be a Jew, but in his heart he was a Christian.
Here then is an early example of exactly the opposite of the so-called crypto-Jew: a'Jew who was secretly a believing Chri~tian ~nd ~ould har~ly wait to escape the Jewish community so that he mIght hve hIS n~w faIth openly. In his reply, Ibn Adret approved the ruling of the local r,abbI that no Jew was to have any dealings with the man, and he add~d that SIllce the man in fact was an apostate (mumar) with regard to the entIre Torah, he w~s not to be considered a Jew at all. In this, he clearly followed the exact rulIng of Maimonides' namely that such a one is no longer a Jew but a complete
Gentile.17 El;ewhere, Ibn Adret ruled that one who separates himself entirely from the community (a min, meshumad, apiqoros [heretic], despiser of the holidays, or denier of resurrection) may not be given funeral rites or have mourning observed for him when he dies.ls
In his early responsa, apparently, Ibn Adret was not yet altoget?er clear himself as to the meaning of these various terms. Thus, in a questIon from Lerida, he was consulted about a quarrel ber:ween ~oJews, on~ of ~h?m called the other a meshumad, which resulted III the msulted party s b~mgIllg charges. The complaint stated that meshum~d means "?eretic," whIch the Gentiles call "renegade" in their language (I.e., tornadtzo): Ibn Ad:et was asked to explain the meaning of the Hebrew term, and replIed that. It re~ers to anyone who is accustomed to commit even a single tran~~ress,I~n (I.e;: repeatedly), and not even "defiantly" (le-hakhCis) but only las~lVlously
(le-teCavon), but who still remains a Jew. He cited several TalmudIc sources to substantiate this, and concluded that it appears that meshumad does not mean "renegade" but one who "breaches the fence" (transgresses) because of desire-to eat what is prohibited, etc.19


Clearly, this contradicts his opinion in the previously cited case (which
may, in fact, have been written later), where he ruled that such a one is not
to b~ considered a Jew at all. In that case, however, he dealt with one who
may be said to have abandoned the entire Torah, whereas perhaps in general
Ibn Adret considered a meshumad to be a transgressor only of specific laws.
Yet one is inclined rather to assume that it is a question of the different
periods of time when the two responsa were written, and that as the prob­
lem of willful converts increased in frequency, he came to the conclusion
that a meshumad is a complete Gentile.
In any event, this last-cited opinion of Ibn Adret on the meaning of the
term meshumad does not coincide with the language of the geonim in
several of their responsa, as we have seen already, nor with the use of the
term by other Spanish authorities. Indeed, in the Christian polemical anti­
converso work known as Alborayco, written in 1488, the Hebrew term
meshumad is defined precisely as "rebel" (just as in the question to Ibn
Adret), or one who voluntarily converts to Christianity, as opposed to anus,
defined as a "Christian by force," that is, converted under duress:
tomaron ellos [i.e., conversosl entre sy un sobrenombre en ebrayco anuzim que quiere dezir forc;ados. Ca sy alguno se torna Xpistiano, lIamanle mesu­mad, que quiere dezir en ebrayco rreboluedor.20
There is also a problematic responsum attributed to Ibn Adret in which it is stated that a convert who returns to Judaism requires lashes for his ~ransgr~ssio~s of the law (while he was a Christian) but does not require ImmerSIOn hke a Gentile proselyte. Nevertheless, the same responsum is ~l~eady.found in some of the collections of responsa of the geonim, where It IS attnbuted to Natronai Gaon. Still, a difficulty remains, in that Natronai elsewhere ruled that a convert does not inherit from his father for his con­version,. "removes him from the sanctity of Israel," which w~uld directly ContradICt the statement here that he remains a Jew even after having con­~erted.21 Either the responsum does not belong in Ibn Adret's collection at all, since it is apparently by Natronai, or else we may assume that Ibn Adret was asked a similar question and merely copied the earlier opinion of the
gaon (unlikely). Whether or not Ibn Adret wrote this decision is finally irrelevant for the 0.riginal decision of Natronai was certainly known in Spain, and i~deed is cIted (th~ugh simply as "a responsum of a gaon") in the fourteenth century by the chIef legal authority of Castile, Jacob b. Asher (Tur, Yoreh de'ah, no. 267.20). Similarly, in the responsa of Ibn Adret ascribed to Nabmanides (most are ~ctuall! by Ibn Adret,' with some few by Nabmanides) there appears a questIon to Rabenu Moses Gaon" concerning a Jew who converted and
Early Phase of Conversions
then returned to Judaism. The problem concerns. ~ine w~ich h;, ~ou~hed after returning to Jewish observance, and whether It IS consIdered hbatIOus
ine." The reply was that if he went to a place where he was not known :nd there observed the Sabbath "in the market" (in his business, kept closed on the Sabbath) and kept all the other commandments, he would be ac­cepted as a complete Jew and his wine permitted.22 . .

The problem is, who wrote this decision? Muller dId not hesItate to at­tribute it to Moses Gaon of Sura (Moses Kahana b. Jacob, head of the Sura academy, in Iraq, from 825 to 836).23 But the text as we have it in the collection of Ibn Adret cannot be by this Moses, for it cites the opinions of "R"Y b. Abraham, of blessed memory," who is, of course, Rabbi Yonah (Jonah) b. Abraham Gerundi, another teacher of Ibn Adret. The cl~ar proof that this responsum is, in fact, by Moses B. Nabman (Nabmamdes) and not Moses Gaon is the citation of EI'azar (erroneously, in the printed text, Eli'ezer) b. Judah of Worms (thirteenth century). It so happens that Nabma­nides elsewhere also mentions him, and says that a portion of this book had come to him.24
It is also important to observe that the responsum states that even after the returned convert has gone to a place where he is not known, he is not then required to return to his former place of residence (where he was known as a convert), "for if he returned there they would kill him." Had this, in fact, been written by a gaon it would also be correct, and would refer to the Muslim law which generally required the death penalty for all Muslims or converts to Islam who abandoned their faith.25 However, since we have seen that it is actually written by Nabmanides, this is important testimony to the fact that Christians in Aragon-Catalonia actually punished by death a convert to Christianity who returned to Judaism, as required by canon law.
The matter of incorrect identification of an authority again arises in con­
nection with a very important decision which has previously received atten­
tion. In one of the cases in a collection of responsa of the geonim appears
the statement that "ha-R"IF" (Isaac al-Fasi of Muslim Spain) said in the
name of his teachers that a "defiant apostate" who has eaten forbidden
foods may be charged interest on a loan, like a Gentile, but a "lascivious
apostate" may not. The implication is clear: even the defiant apostate, like
a complete convert, is not considered a Jew according to this opinion.26

However, the responsum is not by al-Fasi at all, but rather by "ha-R"I,"
in this case, Isaac b. Samuel of Dampierre in France, the nephew of Rabenu
Tam, and in its original form it deals not with an apostate at all but with
the son of a converted woman (ben ha-meshumedet). It was reported that
Rashi, the famous commentator of the Bible and Talmud, had said that it
was forbidden to lend money on interest to the son of a convertY However,
Isaac reports the tradition of his uncle, Rabenu Tam (Rashi's son-in-law),


28 Early Phase of Conversions
of a certain converso who went to his house on the Sabbath and forcibly took his wife away in order that she should also be converted. The com­munity decided to send messengers to inform the woman's father in another town, and also messengers to bring a document from the king to save her.34
Rabbi Judah Ibn Crespa (or Crisp) of Toledo addressed several questions to Ibn Adret of Barcelona, and one of these dealt with a man who came from Seville with a woman; witnesses testified that he had taken her away from her husband by adultery and that both of them had cOJ;lVerted to Chris­tianity, but she had received a bill of divorce from her husband. Now the man and woman appeared in Toledo acting as Jews and as husband and wife. Ibn Crespa said he had the power to turn them over to the government for punishment, and asked what he should do. Ibn Adret replied that an adulterous wife must be divorced from her husband, even against his will, and is also forbidden to the man who had sexual relations with her. That man also is under a kind of ban, and no one may live with him, "but to hand him over to the government to kill him [apparently since he was a renegade convert], this is not for me; it is for you, if you see that the testi­mony of the witnesses is true and that he converted and also took the woman adulterously, and you see a 'fence' [to prevent others] in the thing by handing him to the government, I have already written to you" (that it may be done); if not, then lashes should be administered and both of them exiled to different places.
Isaac b. Sheshet, after he left Spain in 1391 and went to North Africa, responded to a question by the rabbi of Majorca, Moses Ibn 'Amar, in 1392, concerning a bill of divorce received by a conversa from her Jewish husband. The question involved the use of both a Jewish and Gentile (Arabic) name for the husband in the document, as it was common in Spain to have two such names. In his reply, Isaac also mentions that "the government is strict not to allow a converso [mumar] to be mentioned by his Jewish name but only by the Gentile name, and they punish [violators] on this; and because of our sins converts have increased there [Majorca] and among them are informers and 'speakers in darkness' against the Jews," because of whom the Jewish scribes possibly fear to write a Jewish name in a document con­cerning a converso.35
Yom Tov Ishbili replied to a question from Valencia (corrupt in the text) which contained a document written "in the Gentile language" (pos­sibly Arabic) involving a case where the trustee appointed to administer the property of children whose father had died was attempting to nullify the marriage contract of the parents (and thus the benefits of property to the widow). One of the charges was that she had "transgressed the Mosaic and Jewish religion" and was thus "rebellious." He replied, with respect to this charge, that there was no evidence to sustain it, and in such a case witnesses are required and also a prior warning to her, in accord with Jewish law.36

Early Phase of Conversions
While this deals with a charge of supposed transgression, and not actual conversion, the legal principle of testimony and warning sheds some light also on views concerning actual conversion.
In this regard it is important to clarify that being Jewish is not a matter of "religion," a concept which did not exist in Jewish thought (or in the He­brew language) until contact with Christianity necessitated the creation of a new term in Hebrew to refer to the phenomenon of "religion." (Throughout this book the term "Judaism" is used, but this is done for convenience of understanding. In fact, it is a complete anachronism, for the term did not exist until modern times. No medieval Jew would have understood what "Judaism" is.) The P~!l\is that Jews defined themselves as a people, not followers of a religioV
This being true, it was extremely difficult to envision a situation in which an individual could legally cease being a member of this people, rather like the difficulty of expelling someone (or voluntarily withdrawing) from a fam­ily. This explains the adherence of the French and German rabbinical au­thorities to the concept that "an Israelite Uew] even though he transgresses remains an Israelite."
In other words, even though a Jew was seen to have become an adherent of another faith, the important thing was that he or she was considered to remain technically a Jew and part of the Jewish people. True, a distinction was made as to whether such a convert, presumed to have acted under du­ress, observed at least in private as much of Jewish law as possible. This had nothing to do with "religion" (contrary to the modern distinction between "religious" and "secular" spheres of life, Jewish law embraces all of life), but with demonstrating individual commitment to maintaining a relation­ship with the Jewish people and eventually returning to it. ~
In medieval Spain, therefore, it was not an easy thing to come to the ' almost novel conclusion that a convert was no longer a Jew at all, but had (' left the Jewish people and become completely a Gentile. "Almost" novel,~; because, as we have seen, there was already some precedent for such a view in decisions of the geonim and in the opinion of Maimonides. Neverthe­less, this was a difficult conclusion to reach, and one which deliberately set aside the prevailing precedent of the Franco-German rule of "Israelite even though he transgresses."
As we have seen, two necessary conditions were requisite for such a con­clusion: the conversion had to be willful, and there had to be conclusive evidence of a deliberate and total rejection of Jewish law and of Jewish peo­plehood on the part of the convert. Without these two conditions, no rab­binical authority in medieval Spain would have dared to reach so bold a decision which irreversibly and categorically removed the convert from the ranks of the Jewish people.It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of~~asping this point.



r~'"

30 31
Early Phase of Conversions . Early Phase of Conversions
Yet another issue concerning the ability of a convert to inherit from his
Jewish father. Maimonides already ruled that a convert does inherit from a
Jewish relative, but added: "and if the Jewish court saw fit to forfeit his
money and punish him that he not inherit in order to strengthen their hands
[discourage conversion], they have permission." In such an instance, if the
convert has Jewish children (who were born before his conversion and who remain Jews), the inheritance which should have gone to the convert would  :1
go to them, "and so is the custom always in the Maghrib" (Spain and North  (
Africa).38
Ibn Adret cited the responsum of Haya (Hai) Gaon that a convert does  I
not inherit, since he as "gone out of the sanctity of [the people] Israel," for
a convert "goes from people to people, and this is not done." 39
Similarly, the geonim ruled that the property of a woman who converted
and then died could not be inherited by her Jewish husband. Netanyahu

correctly observed, therefore, that the geonic opinion thus was that a con­vert changed not only his or her "religion," but also "peoplehood," going completely from one people to another.40 This is correct, but only with re­gard to this one issue of inheritance; however, it is likely that this ruling influenced the attitude of the Spanish Jewish authorities with regard to con­verts in general, as noted above. Maimonides' contrary position must be explained in that he most probably was considering Jewish conversion to Islam, which he did not consider idolatry. He took a very strict position with regard to conversion to "idolatry" (Christianity, in his view). The es­sential underlying Talmudic text which provides us with the distinctions in terminology which we have previously discussed appears to be CA.Z. 26b, where the distinction is made between an "appetitive" or "lascivious" and a "defiant" apostate. One opinion holds the "defiant" apostate to be a min (in the context, one who eats ritually unfit meat; obviously a Jewish heretic is meant). According to the other opinion, however, a min is one who wor­ships idols; i.e., not a heretic but a complete Gentile. Maimonides ruled:
minim, and they are idolators, or one who commits transgressions defi­antly ... and apiqorsin, Jews who deny the Torah and prophecy, it is an obligation to kill them if one has it in his power, with a sword in public; and if not, let him initiate actions which will cause their death
such as placing them in a situation of danger and not helping them. But Gentiles (idolators) with whom Jews are not at war must not be dealt with in such a manner; yet nevertheless it is forbidden to actively save them from danger. Even a Jew who is habituated in committing transgressions falls into this latter category, and is no longer considered "your brother" who must be saved; but a Jew who commits transgressions only for his own pleasure (an appetitive apostate) must be saved-i.e., is still considered a Jew.41

Jacob b. Asher, son of the renowned rabbi of Toledo arid author of the Tur, was more circumspect with regard to Gentiles, and interpreted all rul­i'ngs not to save them as applying to "Canaanites" at the time the Jews had their own land. Nevertheless, he included in his definitive legal code that minim, informers, defiant apostates, and apiqorsim are to be "killed with the hands."42
Ibn Abi Sarwi had apparently yet another text of the Talmudic passage, which stated that a lascivious apostate is a convert (meshumad) and a defi­ant apostate is a min, and also that even a defiant apostate is a meshumad, and a min is an idolater. Although this is a patently absurd reading, it was also the text which Menabem ha-Meiri had (Beit ha-bebirah, ad loc). In­deed, Ibn Abi Sarwi himself was puzzled by the reading of the text as he had it, and noted that there is no difference between a meshumad and a min in this case. (This, of course, is much less a difficulty than why it should occur to anyone that a lascivious apostate would be considered a meshumad. No such opinion had ever been recorded or even suggested by any legal author­ity.) He offers the explanation of his teacher, Jonah Gerundi (did he also have the same incorrect text?) that if a meshumad in the time of the Temple brought an offering, it was received, but not that of a min. The difference "in this time" (after the Temple) would be that if a meshumad slaughtered an animal, and Jews supervised the slaughter, the meat is permitted. All of this is due, however, to the error in the Talmudic text he had, for the text should read (as it does in the present versions) mumar, and not meshumad. Indeed, it is astonishing that Ibn Abi Sarwi, and if we are to rely upon his testimony also his teacher Rabbi Jonah, could have forgotten here the im­portant and lengthy discussion of precisely these laws in Hulin, or the dis­cussion of them by authorities like Ibn Adret.43
The law is unmistakably that neither a mumar with respect to idolatry,
nor a meshumad, may bring a sacrifice, nor is their slaughter acceptable.
Students are rarely to be relied upon in reporting what their teachers said,
however; and as for Ibn Abi Sarwi himself, obviously he needed to learn
considerably more before writing anything. These are not phenomena with
which we are unfamiliar in modern times as well.
Yom Tov Ishbill is also reported to have said that a convert to Christian­
ity, or a proselyte who reverted to his former religion, is considered with
regard to purchasing and selling or contracting financial obligations to be
still a Jew, unless the law of the kingdom is that he buy and sell in accord
with Gentile law, in which case "the law of the kingdom is the law." Fur­
thermore, a Jew who transgressed the Jewish law, and then repented, does
not require immersion according to the letter of the law (as a proselyte
would); nevertheless, he should be immersed from the viewpoint of rabbini­
callaw.44 If we examine this reliably reported opinion carefully, we see that
it does not permit us to conclude that Ishbili considered a convert to be still
a Jew from the point of view of full and complete status, but only with regard to certain contractual obligations. This is in accord with the previous rulings on marriage which we have discussed. The contractual obligation still falls under the category of Jewish law, while the status of the person is, in fact, no longer that of a Jew. This explains why he requires immersion for a repentant meshumad. What this means, in fact, is that a returning meshumad is viewed exactly as a Gentile, and must therefore undergo com­plete conversion (thus immersion is required in such a case, for he would already have been circumcised, of course; later Marranos, after the Expul­sion, who left Portugal or in rare cases Spain also had to be circumcised as part of their conversion to Judaism).
Thus, the position which was unquestionaJ:>ly held by such fifteenth­century theorists as Isaac (Arama, and by the overwhelming majority of rabbis after the Expulsion-namely, that the Marranos were complete Gen­tiles and that the minority of "returners" among them were to be considered "not as penitents, but as proselytes," i.e., converts to Judaism-is found already firmly established in legal opinion in the fourteenth century.45 The conclusion is thus inescapable: the Jewish authorities of Spain already con­sidered the conversos to be not anusim but meshumadim, not "forced" con­verts acting under duress but complete and willful converts who were no longer part of the Jewish people, and this in the fourteenth century, not just in the fifteenth.
One might suppose that the attacks on Jewish communities in the sum­mer of 1391 resulted in massive conversions due to fear, like those of the First Crusade in Germany. Indeed, there is considerable evidence of mass conversion, but given the forceful reaction of the kings there was clearly no reason for "fear," nor did the rabbinic authorities treat those conversions as happening under "duress" but, again, as complete willful conversion. Fur­ther~ore, .those who had the opportunity to leave t~tcoli~h~,and return to
Judaism did not do so. i . .,.\ /1'\ '\ ;­

\ 'J
\

The Historical Record I
Turning from the Hebrew sources to the few historical records we have concerning conversos in the early fourteenth century, we hear, for example, of three Jews in La Almunia (a small town near Calatayud) who in 1342 paid 10,000 sous to Pedro IV to be pardoned for having aided and encour­aged certain conversos to return to Judaism. The accused Jews had been seized by the Inquisition for this crime (they were Gento [Yom Tov] Almuli, his wife Gemila [Jamila], and their son Jucef, who c~rtainly was the Jucef Almuli who was physician to the infant Alfonso in 1324 and after).46

Early Phase of Conversions
As we shall see, it was only in such rare cases that the Inquisition was allowed to touch Jews at all; otherwise, they were strictly forbidden to in­vestigate Jews.

The Black Death, or plague, in 1348 which decimated much of Europe also affected Spain, although perhaps to a lesser degree (certainly less in Cas­tile), Jews were also blamed in some communities, particularly in Aragon­Catalonia, and attacked, and some were killed, in spite of the strong efforts of the king to prevent this. We hear, however, nothing about conversions, except in Perpignan (in Provence) where several Jews apparently converted. A question was addressed to Nissim Gerundi concerning a woman whose husband died some four years before the plague and who had a brother who had converted and now lived in the village of Gaillac (near Albi). This man's Jewish name had been En Samuel de Castres, and after his conversion it was changed to maestre Benedit (which would indicate, probably, that he was a physician). Other conversos at the time of the plague in Perpignan are also mentioned there.47
It was, however, the unprecedented attacks on Jewish communities throughout Spain in the summer of 1391 which constituted the worst epi­sode in Spanish Jewish history up to that point. This is not the place to detail all the many important facts and new information concerning these tragic events. What is of importance for our present purposes, however, is infor­mation concerning the conversion of Jews at that time. In Castile, where the attacks began at the incitement of the fanatic archdeacon Ferrant Martinez in Seville, the young king (twelve at the time), Enrique III, left Madrid in May and went to Segovia, where messengers came and informed him of the attack on the Jews in Seville, the robbery of the Jewish aljama there, and the conversion of "most" of the Jews, and similarly in Cordoba, Toledo, and elsewhere. The king acted promptly, sending not only messengers with or­ders that such attacks be stopped, but also archers to other towns to defend the Jews. '
Pedro Lopez de Ayala, the chancellor and chronicler of the king, notes that the attacks were due more to greed than to devotion, and that people wished also to attack the Muslims (a fact totally ignored by historians) but refrained because of fear of what might happen to Christians in Granada and North Africa. He concludes that Martinez was able to incite the attacks because no one feared the boy king.48
The king wrote a letter to the council and justices of Burgos which basi­cally confirms Lopez de Ayala's judgment of the situation, concluding that he and his council had decided to arrest anyone involved in such offenses, for the Jews were always guarded and protected by "the kings, my ances­tors, and the Church [read eglesia] itself by law" guarded and defended them. In a subsequent letter, the king said that some persons of the lower class and of little understanding had attacked the juderia also in Burgos and forced some Jews to convert, against both his law and that of the Church, and he took the Jews under his protection. Nevertheless, in 1392 the king again wrote that the Jews were being robbed and many had fled to take refuge in the homes of "good men" (Christians) in the city. Some desired to convert, others already had, while others wished to return to the juderia. In a second letter that summer the king noted that conversos were molest­ing the Jews and ordered this stopped, nor should conversos be allowed to compel Jews to convert. "Our law neither orders nor consents that any should turn to the Catholic faith by force and against his will. The Jews who by their own will desire to become Christians, it is well to receive them, but not to force those who of their own will do not [wish to] convert." Nor should they be compelled to listen to sermons of conversos or (old) Christians.49
Our most important Jewish source is the letter of Basdai Crescas, the renowned philosopher and also rabbinic leader of Aragon-Catalonia. He states that many Jews in Toledo were killed, and many converted, unable to save themselves (but see p. 372 below). So also in Valencia and Majorca. As for Barcelona, he notes that the Jews took refuge in the king's castle and that the governor of the city worked to save them; nevertheless, many died (in­cluding either a son, or more probably, a son-in-law, of Crescas himself) and others converted. A statement of Reuben, son of Nissim Gerundi, confirms Crescas' letter, and estimates that a total of 140,000 Jews converted (in the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia alone). He blames the disaster on the preach­ing of the friars, but adds that "many of the governors of the cities and the ministers and nobility defended us, and many of our brethren took refuge in castles, where they provided us with food. "SO
Juan I of Aragon-Catalonia ordered measures taken to protect the Jews, just as Enrique had done in Castile. In Perpignan, for example, he later also prohibited the forced conversion of Jews, and gave orders for the protection of Jews in Zaragoza, Tortosa, Barcelona, and other cities. When a Jew of Zaragoza was forcibly detained in a castle of the bishop of Osma, the queen wrote not one but two letters protesting this abuse. She stated that she would be pleased if all the "infidels" of the world would convert, but not through force, "for any act which is not voluntary is without merit." 51
Even allowing for the great exaggerations in the letter of Crescas (the "destruction" of the community of Toledo, which we know to be false; that no Jews were left in the whole kingdom of Valencia, etc.), these attacks were a catastrophe for the entire Jewish population of Spain. Nevertheless, given the absolutely undeniable fact that both in Castile and in Aragon-Catalonia the kings and nobles acted promptly and effectively to stop the attacks and severely punish the perpetrators, and at least in the latter kingdom also to prohibit the forced conversion of Jews and permit any thus converted to return to their faith, the inescapable conclusion is that the overwhelming Early Phase of Conversions
majority of the conversions were voluntary. Certainly, the converted Jews who remained Christians in spite of the permission to return to their own people did so voluntarily. This, as we shall see, was a fact well known to the rabbinical authorities of the period.
Other facts also confirm it. Thus, in Barcelona the synagogue of the call En Sanahuja, one of several in the city, was transformed by five conversos into a church of the Holy Trinity. Another synagogue eventually became the present Church of San Jaime, near the street called Tres Llits (three beds), which actually was Tressallits, or "renegades" (conversos).52 Even given the opportunity to resume their Jewish status, the conversos of Barcelona only too willingly chose to remain Christian.

Hitherto overlooked by scholars (Baer, Netanyahu, Beinart, etc.) is the important document, available in a book published in 1941 and reviewed by Cantera in 1944, from the Christian judges of Valencia (1403) to certain conversos who had fled to Argel in North Africa and there returned to Ju­daism. However, "recognizing their error," they had now reverted to Chris­tianity and severed all connections with Jews there and desired to return to the Church (and to Spain). The judges expressed their great pleasure at this.53
In July of 1391, Isaac b. Sheshet (Perfet), rabbi of Valencia and chief legal authority of the Jews of the kingdom of Aragon-Catalonia, was compelled to convert, after having been accused of "a crime" for which he was sen­tenced to death (possibly, although there is no evidence, he may in fact al­ready have been compelled to convert and then "relapsed" to Judaism, for which he was now condemned). After the intercession of officials of the infant Martin and because his conversion was seen to "do much good" (i.e., influence the rest of the Jews to convert), a pardon was granted to him.
When the aged Isaacb. Sheshet left Valencia in 1391 and went to North Africa, he replied to a question from a rabbi there, previously a rabbi in Majorca, concerning a Jewish will that had been made in a Christian court. He stated that the doubts concerning it would be proper if it had been made by Jews in a place where they were allowed to act according to Jewish law, "but this testator was living in Majorca in the presumptive state of being an idolator, and so his widow who seeks to inherit from him was also there in the presumptive state of a Christian, and so [also] these who are relatives seeking to inherit; and even when they were yet Jews they had to judge everything according to Christian laws, for thus the community of Majorca always did by its own choice." (He gives a Hebrew summary of the text of the document of the baile of Majorca addressed to the consuls and qadis [Muslim judges] concerning the converso Joan From, whose Jewish name had been Abraham Yal)yun, and of his will in favor of his wife, Bonietta, previously Esther, dated 30 December 1401.)54
Thus we see that in the opinion of the foremost legal authority of the age such conversos were to be considered "idolaters," and also that the Jewish community of Majorca had voluntarily decided to judge all such matters in accord with Christian, rather than Jewish, law already long before the per­secutions of 1391. This may be an important clue to a growing tendency toward assimilation which made it all the easier for the majority of the Jews of Majorca to willingly convert in 1391.
Interestingly, it happens that Simon b. Sema!). Duran, who himself fled Majorca in 1391 and became a rabbi also in North Africa, dealt with this same case in his responsa, but his version is slightly different. First, he indi­cates that it was the intention of Abraham Ya!).yun and his wife to leave Majorca and come to North Africa. Second, whereas Isaac b. Sheshet spoke in hostile terms about their being "idolaters," and referred to them as "apostates," Duran talks about "compulsion" and the "land of persecu­tion." He indeed cites the decision of Isaac, with which he disagrees sharply (as usual), and contrary to what Baer understood, he decided against Isaac's ruling.55
Isaac again mentions the practice of the Jews of Majorca of bringing all matters before Christian courts in yet another responsum: "When we came to this land [North Africa], we did not see any custom in [the matter under discussion there], for the inhabitants of the land did not go according to the laws of our Torah but rather all disputes are brought before the Muslim judge. Also the community of Majorca, from which the majority of our community [in North Africa] comes, only followed there the law of the Muslims [sic; apparently a slip of the pen for 'Christians']." However, Duran again sheds a different light on this when in his letter of 1435 to Majorca he writes: "You are in a place where they do not permit you to judge civil matters" by Jewish law. There is some evidence from Christian sources to support this even for the fourteenth century. 56
One apparent exception to this general attitude toward conversos was that of Profiat Duran, who also had converted to Christianity and then re­turned to Judaism. In his letter of condolence to En Joseph Abraham of Gerona on the death of his father, Abraham b. Isaac ha-Levy, he wrote that the most important and ancient of the commandments was circumcision, which alone sufficed for the redemption of the people, and continued:
And I say that [the tribulations of the Babylonian exile] are a hint to the por­tion of the seed of Abraham compelled to neglect the Torah openly and upon whom have passed decrees of apostasy in this great region [Aragon-Catalonia] [but] he [Abraham b. Isaac ha-Levy] saw the reluctance of part of the people to repent ... it is possible already to consider from this that that portion [of the people] has gone out of the generality of the people which God has cho­sen as His inheritance, [therefore] he tore his clothing and cried and said, "Perhaps, heaven forbid, they have no remedy" ... and the situation in this exile is like that in other exiles and as in the exile of Egypt when the people
Early Phase of Conversions
stumbled in idolatry willingly [but] not for this were they excluded from the generality of the seed of Abraham [i.e., they were still considered Jews] and [God] did not refrain from bringing them out of Egypt .... In the Babylonian exile, although all of them stumbled in idolatry and under compulsion ... not for this were they excluded from the seed of Abraham, and in His love of them and His compassion [God] redeemed them. So is it proper that it continue in this great exile, for although a portion of the people has stumbled in like manner [idolatry] due to complete compulsion from fear of the decrees, not for this have they been excluded from the people of God.57
It is clear from this that, shortly after 1391, Duran believed that the majority of the converts had acted under duress and because of their fear of what might happen. However, his reference to the reluctance of some to repent after the persecutions ended, and to the possibility therefore that they had withdrawn completely from the Jewish people, already indicates his convic­tion that those who remained as converts were no longer Jews at all.
Isaac b. Sheshet was asked in another case about a woman, described as an anusah (convert under duress), who was divorced from her husband who had also converted, where the bill of divorce was signed by anusim (as wit­nesses). The woman succeeded in fleeing Spain and went to North Africa, where she could "serve God at ease and without fear," and the witnesses were known to be Jews at heart but unable to leave Spain. However, there was some suspicion that they remained in Spain only because of their pos­sessions there, and thus might in fact be considered "completely wicked." The rabbi replied that in the case of duress, where there is fear for life, even if one violates one of the commandments under which it is required to die rather than transgress (idolatry, adultery, or murder), he is exempt from any punishment, and thus they were acceptable witnesses. He also cited the pre­viously mentioned responsum of Ibn Adret. But all of this, he makes clear, is only in the case of a true anus, whereas in the case of an apostate, even an "appetitive" or "lascivious" apostate, such a one is unfit for testimony. He concludes by warning that converts who remain for some time in the land where they converted, and do not flee to another land, must be inves­tigated carefully:
for some of them could have left that land [Spain] and saved themselves from persecution, but even though the beginning of their apostasy was in compul­sion, afterward they rejected the yoke of heaven and severed the tradition of the Torah from themselves and willingly walk in the law of idolaters, trans­gressing all the commandments of the Torah. Not only this, they pursue [per­secute] the unfortunate Jews among them to accuse them and annihilate them as a people, that the name of Israel should no longer be mentioned. Also the anusim whose hearts are toward heaven and endeavor to leave the persecu­tion, these evil ones [converts] inform on them to the government-as we have heard concerning some in Valencia and in Barcelona.58


Early Phase of Conversions
that this wine is prohibited for several reasons. Again, this is a particular' case, completely unlike the previous one, and so the law dictated clearly that such wine is prohibited. We do not learn from this of any "change" Or "reversal" in Duran's views.
However, at the end of the responsum Duran discusses the general prac­tice among the Jews of Majorca of believing anusim when they say they' bought wine from a Jew or made it for a Jew, but not relying on them when they say the wine was in the possession of Gentiles. He says that they have not made it clear whether all anusim are alike, "for we see those who come here [North Africa], that some are complete idolaters [Christians], and therefore who can determine who is fit and who is not?" Further, they do not consider that "the majority; close to all" of the converts profane Sabbath publicly, and that they did not leave Spain even when government permission to do so was given to them. Many, indeed, built houses and married off their sons and daughters (thus revealing their intentions not to leave at all). Some of the converts who fled to North Africa even to live in Spain.
He complains that it seems the Jews of Majorca consider that Maimo­nides wrote only about severe persecutions, where the king constantly per­secutes the Jews and does not allow them to leave at all,
but in these decrees [of 1391], and particularly in that place [Majorca], they are lenient with the anusim and allow them to do as they will and do not coerce them to worship idolatry, and they are almost in a presumptive state of being Jews as far as they [the Christians] are concerned, so that they give them permission to leave as they desire. But if a true Gentile [convert] were to leave there to return to the faith of Moses, even were he to give all the money in the world, they would not permit him; on the contrary, they would kill him. From this [that anusim are allowed to leave] it appears that they are in a presumptive state of complete Jews as far as they [Christians] are concerned; but [= for] in the requirement of their religion, one who has converted even under duress cannot return to the religion of Israel. Therefore, they close their eyes at [these converts], and there is nothing in their conversion except that their names are Gentile names ... and since the anusim see this, they consider their remaining there completely permissible.

He concludes that the leniency of the Jews in considering them trustworthy',' has encouraged them to remain, and it is of this that he says, "and this is: not my opinion"; i.e., it is not that Duran did not believe that the anusim . were good Jews, for he says that he does not know and that the local J community must decide that, but that in his opinion the true anusim should ' .. ' be encouraged to leave (see further discussion in the note).61
Nothing in Duran's opinion has "changed." In 1404, as in 1391, he re­garded the true anus leniently, as possibly willing to return to Judaism; Phase of Conversions

. complete and actual convert (whom he correctly calls meshumad) was,
another matter. a responsum referring, apparently, to new converts in the persecu­in Majorca in 1435 ("these last anusim who as yet do not have a
of profaning the Sabbath publicly"), and whether wine which made and sent to North Africa should be permitted, Duran ruled that not, especially since "without doubt" they did not themselves re­from drinking Gentile wine and thus were suspect with regard to their
wine.62 that he distinguishes here among the "first anusim" (those of 1391), those who really were compelled by the sword to convert, and that were not compelled by complete compulsion," i.e., who willfully
'HI')wevc~r, there is yet another responsum by Duran, overlooked by Ne­on the same issue. This was written to Mordecai Najar in Tenes, in the period after 1404 but before 1435. The case concerned sent to Najar by an anus of Majorca with an accompanying letter that it had been made by an observant Jew in "Murbiter" (Mur­presently Sagunto, on the coast north of Valencia). Duran wrote that anusim are not to be relied upon in this, but in this case the wine ",..."mem was not made by the anus nor did it even come from Majorca, everyone can recognize by its taste and its fragrance that it is from the "'F....V .... of Valencia," and furthermore it is "obvious" that anusim do not in the sale of forbidden wine to Jews since they know this must not done, and this alone is sufficient to permit the use of all the wine which from Murviedro to "these lands" (North Africa) which is sent by
. More important still is another responsum, also neglected by Netanyahu, to his senior colleague Isaac b. Sheshet concerning the permissibility . eating cheese obtained from an anus who is suspected of not observing relevant dietary laws. Isaac wanted to rely on the reasoning of Aaron of Barcelona that it is permitted to eat such food if the anus is I.lsr)eclted only of eating forbidden foods but not of giving (or selling) them Jews. Duran countered with the contrary argument of Ibn Adret, and that the opinion of Aaron ha-Levy on this was not to be accepted
,all.64

Yet another overlooked ruling concerns a bill of divorce written by a mt~Sh;umiad in Majorca and sent to his Jewish wife in Tenes. Duran wrote the document was null and void, like that of a Gentile who is not legally to write a bill of divorce, "and such is the law with regard to a meshumad respect to idolatry or public desecration of the Sabbath, who is like a reesnUimaa with respect to the entire Torah." Yet another question from concerned such a bill of divorce "written in Majorca by one of those

II
44 Early Phase of Conversions


Phase of Conversions 45
address: if Jews were being "coerced" into converting in Spain, why did they ··Further indication that a convert was not considered a Jew is found in not simply leave the country? The answer, of course, is that they were not • comment of Joseph Ibn Habib on the statement (Sanhedrin 60a) that at so coerced, but that they freely chose to become Christians. this time one who hears the cursing of God or profane utterance of God's
It thus became necessary early on to have some clear criterion by which .. arne by an idolater need not tear his clothing (as a sign of mourning), since to judge the intent of a converso. That criterion was to be the actions, and ·ftis so frequent that if this were required one's clothing would be full of not merely the words, of the person in question. This is clearly seen not only·, rips. Ibn Habi~ observes that in his. time the same applies to. a convert to in Duran, but even much earlier in a decision of Jonah Gerundi, cited by his "idolatry," but 1f a Jew were so heretical as to use God's name 10 such a way student Ibn Adret. He was asked about a man, an apparent convert to Chris-one must still tear the clothing. Thus we see that a Jew who converts was tianity, who went from city to city. He said that he believed in Christianity '.. considered to have no respect for the God of Israel at all.?O when he was with Christians, and he entered the synagogue and claimed to . Two cases involving Ishblli are instructive. In the year 1314 in the town be a Jew when he was among Jews. Rabbi Jonah answered that he is to be Daroca, two Jews were caught late at night in the synagogue, where they believed when he says he is a Jew, because it is likely that he lies about ...~,•.....•..• VJLV".~ open the doors of the ark where the Torah scrolls were kept in order

"idolatry," and when he says he believes in it,)t is only due to "the pleasures
I

,I of his evil inclination, and he does not believe in his heart"; but his belief in Judaism (not the term used) is "an upright faith, and good, proper, and true, and a thing which is likely." Nevertheless, an apostate who profanes the Sabbath in public is a min, considered a complete Gentile. The same pre­sumption applies to one who "worships idolatry" three times, and thus es-. tablishes that he is truly a convert.68 Thus we see, in spite of the sentimental view about one's good intentions with regard to Judaism, that what is of decisive importance is action, and not mere words: if one commits an act which establishes that he or she is a sincere convert, there is no longer any
steal the silver ornaments on them. They were placed in a kind of com­jail but managed to escape. The mother of one of them came to the court with the plea that she feared her son would convert because he been banished from the town, as four other Jews and their mother (the of one of the Jewish thieves) who had previously been banished had .' converted. The mother further explained that her husband had vol un­washed all the Jewish corpses for the community (to prepare them for ), and that she herself acted as midwife to all the Jewish women; thus, accused man certainly did not come from a non observant home. In his , Ishbili ruled that if the community truly feared that the man would
presumption of Jewishness.convert,and if he appeared repentant and would accept suitable chastise-
Nabmanides explained that a convert is like a Jew with regard to obli-. went as atonement, the banishment could be lifted.?! gations of the Torah; i.e, he may contract a valid marriage, divorce, etc., In the second case, two Jewish men and their wives, who were neighbors, just as even a Gentile may (because we are concerned he may be from the quarreled constantly, until one of the men struck the other with a knife, also "lost tribes" and thus possibly a Jew!). However, he argued that a convert . striking the man's wife. The community leaders imposed certain decrees (un­may also inherit, and from this it is clear that the law of a Jew still applies,'specified) on all four of them. However, some of the local Christians inter-
in his view, to a convert. This was, as we have seen, a minority position.
Even with regard to the laws of sales and damages, converts have the full status of Jews, and only with regard to such things as returning lost objects to them are they to be treated as non-Jews (indeed, worse, for lost articles must be returned to non-Jews). He concludes by admitting, strangely, that he has not seen the rulings of the geonim or of the rabbis of previous gen­erations on this issue, and specifically asks his correspondent to investigate the writings of Judah b. Barzilay on this.69 Note that this entire ruling com­pletely.contradicts the position taken in his novellae on the Talmud, previ­ously discussed. We must therefore conclude that this responsum (indeed, probably all of them) was written in his youth, before the novellae, and that he changed his view in later years. One is also forced to this conclusion by the incredible statement that he has not seen the opinions of the geonim or of the previous rabbis, and that he has not even seen the work of Judah b. Barzilay, who had been a rabbi in Barcelona.

'.. ceded on behalf of one of the men, both in groups and individually, until the governor of the city himself investigated the case. He ordered the decrees lifted, and any fine due to the government nullified. However, the Jewish leaders said they did not have the authority for this. Then the alcaide (mili­tary official), son-in-law of the governor, came to the synagogue on the Sab­bath to entreat the entire congregation to show mercy on this Jew. They agreed to consult Ishbili, the leading rabbinical authority of the time. They feared, as they explained to him, that the man might convert if they did nothing. Ishbili found a means by which he could permit them to annul the decrees they had imposed.72 Not only in the legal sources and responsa literature, but also in some of the homiletic literature of the fourteenth century (just as in the fifteenth century), we find confirmation of the sincerity of the conversos' commitment to Christianity. Commenting on the biblical passage (Deut. 4.27-28) which warns the Israelites that they will be dispersed among the nations, and there


r~

46
Early Phase of Conversions
serve idols of wood and stone "which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell," Nissim Gerundi said in a sermon that this was a warning to the Israelites that if they worshiped idols in their own land, because of the great artifice (hitbokhmut) of that idolatry which caused them to do great evil in the sight of God without considering it, their punishment would be exile from their land and dispersion among the Gentiles and the loss of their wisdom (bokhmah):
And because the custom of [their] fathers was in [their] hands, therefore [they] worship images of which no aspect of wisdom or spirituality is seen in them; not like those which [they] worshiped in their land because of that artifice, rather [they worship these] because of absolute folly, for they see no sign from [these idols] at all. That is why [scripture] expands upon it saying: "They do not see and hear," that is, they do not see in them that same strange thing that was seen in those they worshiped in their own land-for there is no doubt that they saw in those [idols] very strange things.73
Clearly all of this alludes to those Jews who have willfully converted to Christianity in Spain, and who worshiped the statues of saints, etc. This he blames on the sins of their ancestors, who nevertheless at least worshiped idols in the land of Israel because of some "artifice" which made them be­lieve those idols had actual powers (Maimonides had made a similar obser­vation). Now, however, the Jews have lost their "wisdom and understand­ing," and deliberately follow idols which show no signs of powers at all. There is no sympathy here whatsoever for the Jews who have converted, and there is not one word about any kind of compulsion or any expectation for their return.
Finally, mention must be made of the most important document which so far has been almost entirely ignored, probably because of its extremely difficult Hebrew. Although Baer, for example, discussed this document, which he himself had published, neither he nor anyone else has drawn at­tention to the important testimony it contains concerning conversions. This is the document of enactments, or ordinances, of the union of Jewish com­munities of Aragon-Catalonia and Valencia in 1354 (which Baer incorrectly assumed had to do with the Black Plague). The relevant portion of the intro­duction reads:
And many faint-hearted [and] weak of nature who are [as if] in fetters [2 Sam. 3.34] when they see the wheels of the chariot [i.e., of Christianity] cutting off its branch [Israel; the Jews who have converted] have no strength to stand in the hall of the trial and have gone over-being in distress-the pass [Isa. 10.29; here with the meaning of "converted," d. Isa. 24.5, Dan. 9.11]. Fire and sulphur and a scorching wind is the portion of their cup [Ps. 11.6]; to shoot the upright in heart [the loyal Jews] they bend the bow and make ready

r Early Phase of Conversions
Ie according to their desire their arrows [Ps. 11.2].... Many noble communities
t that dwelt securely were brought in a moment to desolation [Ps. 73.19]....
I All the hardships which befell us we saw with our own eyes, and we are silent,
! and we were destroyed, and we waited.
ff Therefore, children of transgression [conversos; Isa. 57.4] have become
t great and grown rich [Jer. 5.27], and those who are borne from birth [Isa.
, 46.3] have changed their glory and that which they promised [Deut. 26.17]
[ for shame [Hos. 4.7; i.e., they have converted].

There is no doubt whatever as to the meaning of this text. Both the reference to "going over the pass," and even more, that to "changing their glory for shame," are clearly understood Hebrew metaphors for conversion. Here, too, is an apparent reference to the same thing mentioned by Isaac b. Sheshet, the persecution of fellow converts and even of Jews by the zealous conversos. This activity, clearly, has put the entire Jewish community into real or potential danger. It was largely in response to this situation, then, that the leaders of the communities decided to enact these ordinances. "What shall be done for it [Israel]?" they ask, alluding to Song of Songs 8.8 (and d. IbncAknin's commentary on this),74 "put on the garment of ven­geance [Isa. 59.17] as the clothing of the remnant [the faithful], and let those who sustain the work, who rule the people, be united; let them speed, haste [1 Sam. 20.38], all of them holy, the entire assembly" to enact the necessary measures.75
The Jews of Leon and Castile did not participate in this extraordinary union of Jewish communities, undoubtedly because the phenomenon of Jew­ish conversion had not yet reached anywhere near the alarming proportions it had in Aragon-Catalonia. Indeed, this conclusion is supported not only by an argument ex silencio, the fact that we hear hardly anything of conver­sion in the Jewish sources of Castile prior to 1391, but also in the observa­tion made by Joseph Ibn Nabmias, religious judge of Toledo and a student of the great Asher b. Yebiel, who discussed the sin of idolatry at length, and commented matter-of-factly, "but all of us are free of that sin." 76 By the end of the century, and throughout the fifteenth century, of course, such a state­ment could no longer be made. Then, vast numbers of Jews in southern Spain were converting as well (it is significant, for example, that in a recently published summary of documents relating to the Jews of Toledo, the only instances of conversos recorded appear after 1394).77